Saturday, April 1, 2017

Here’s That Paper on MicroRNAs in Brown Algae

“No evidence of conservation”

MicroRNAs are small RNA gene products, typically consisting of 20-24 nucleotides, which help to regulate protein synthesis, for example by pausing or halting the ribosome translation process. Like the small drill bit which is inserted into the much larger drill tool, the small microRNAs are attached to a much larger molecular machine that performs the regulation. The microRNA role is to help the molecular machine recognize the correct RNA target. In other words, instead of the cell having to construct a large quantity of different molecular machines to perform the regulatory role on a large quantity of RNA targets, the cell can construct a more generic type of molecular machine, and then simply attach the instructions—the microRNA—as needed. This design approach requires the existence of these two entities: the big molecular machine and its little instruction set. Remove either entity, and this particular regulatory process isn’t going to happen. That does not fit the evolutionary narrative. According to evolution you need a slow, gradual buildup of designs, not all-or-none scenarios. But not surprisingly biology is chocked full of the latter, and so with evolution we must say that the different parts just happened to arise, perhaps serving some other roles, and then just luckily they worked fantastically together to achieve a new function. MicroRNAs are yet another finding that must be force-fit into evolutionary theory. But this irreducible complexity is only the beginning of the problem. With microRNAs, it only gets worse.

A completely different problem that microRNAs pose for evolutionary “theory” is that microRNAs do not fit the common descent pattern. As a recent paper admitted:

There is no evidence of conservation of miRNAs between the phylogenetic groups, indicating that miRNA systems evolved independently in each lineage

Evolved independently?

In other words, microRNAs do not fit the evolution model. The evidence contradicts the theory. Of course one can always make up an explanation. In this case, we say that the microRNAs “evolved independently.”

There you go, problem solved.

But let’s be honest—this is not indicated by the evidence. When the paper states that there is no evidence of conservation of miRNAs between the phylogenetic groups, thus “indicating” that miRNA systems evolved independently, it is simply misrepresenting the science.

There is precisely zero scientific evidence that microRNAs “evolved independently.”

Zero.

That is not my opinion. That is not conjecture. That is scientific fact.

Evolutionists talk a lot about scientific “fact.” They insist evolution is a scientific “fact.” But let’s just be honest. What is a scientific fact here is not evolution, but rather the exact opposite. The “fact” is the microRNAs show “no evidence of conservation.”

That fact does not “indicate” evolution, it contradicts evolution.

Let’s just be honest. For once.

The paper finds yet another example of this failure in the microRNAs in brown algae. The study investigated the microRNAs in the species, Saccharina japonica, and compared them to previously investigated microRNAs, including those in a different brown algae species. Their findings were, as usual, “surprising.” The microRNAs in the two brown algae species were different.

Completely different.

There was not a single pair of microRNAs, between the two species, that showed any sign of statistically significant sequence similarity.

Interestingly, the microRNAs in the two species did generally share some structural and genomic features. So the evolutionists had to conclude that the microRNAs in the two species evolved from a common ancestor, but then their respective sequences evolved like crazy, leaving zero trace of sequence similarity.

This. Makes. No. Sense.

Here how the paper spun the results:

Surprisingly, none of the S. japonica miRNAs share significant sequence similarity with the Ectocarpus sp. miRNAs. However, the miRNA repertoires of the two species share a number of structural and genomic features indicating that they were generated by similar evolutionary processes and therefore probably evolved within the context of a common, ancestral miRNA system. This lack of sequence similarity suggests that miRNAs evolve rapidly in the brown algae (the two species are separated by ∼95 Myr of evolution). The sets of predicted targets of miRNAs in the two species were also very different suggesting that the divergence of the miRNAs may have had significant consequences for miRNA function.

“Probably evolved within the context of a common, ancestral miRNA system”? So what does “within the context” mean?

The answer is this is a meaningless cover phrase that masks the fact that the evidence contradicts the theory. It is evo-speak for “We don’t know what we’re talking about.” A more polite description is “hand-waving.”

A less polite, and more accurate description won’t be repeated here.

I will now consider the elephant in the room: Why is evolution being used to interpret the results in the first place? The theory is superfluous. It is redundant. It is vacuous. It is non-parsimonious. It is meaningless.

The theory does nothing to help us understand, interpret, elucidate, guide, or formulate meaningful predictions. Its only justification is itself.

We use the theory of evolution to interpret the results because the theory is true. And how do we know it is true? Because it is true?

The theory is self-referential. It is circular. It is famous for being famous.

It is a hold-over from the Epicureans of antiquity, the schoolmen of the Middle Ages, the rationalists of the seventeenth century, and the Darwinists today, and it has made a mockery of science.

3 comments:

The theory does nothing to help us understand, interpret, elucidate, guide, or formulate meaningful predictions. Its only justification is itself.

We use the theory of evolution to interpret the results because the theory is true. And how do we know it is true? Because it is true?

The theory is self-referential. It is circular. It is famous for being famous.

What more will it take for evo-bio's to see how true this is?

I recently read a paper where the word "evolution" was simply included to tie the results of the experiment to the "theory." It was a completely unsupported, and unnecessary, gloss. The text, and the results stood all by themselves.

So, this is really what evolutionary theory is: a religious gloss on scientific results.

The results of this study were interpreted in the context of modern evolutionary theory, which is the only theory we currently have that adequately describes the biological world. Independent evolution of miRNAs in more than one lineage is not controversial because this occurs within the context of the more ancient siRNA system, which provides most of the components necessary to evolve an miRNA system. The divergence of (evolution of) miRNA sequences with time can actually be measured by comparing genomes of closely and more distantly related species. Most animal miRNAs also evolve rapidly, only a few have been strongly conserved over long periods of evolutionary time. This site criticises the way in which the data is interpreted but does not suggest any alternative interpretation. (Mark Cock, one of the authors of the study).

Thank you for the comment Mark. I certainly agree with you that the study presupposes evolution and interprets the results “in the context of modern evolutionary theory.” But I hope you can appreciate the problem this poses: as philosophers put it, the results and observations become “theory laden.” Your paper reports that the observations indicate “that miRNA systems evolved independently in each lineage.” But in fact the observations tell us no such thing. That conclusion is entirely dependent on the assumption that evolution is true. So now we have yet another peer-reviewed paper reporting yet more indications and evidences for evolution where, in fact, there is none. But all of this is circular. The finding of evidences for evolution is based on the prior assumption of evolution. In fact, truth be told, these evidences go against evolutionary expectations. Evolution expects common features deriving from common ancestors via common descent. Even your paper admits the results are “surprising.” Of course we can always explain such results by drawing from a variety of candidate mechanisms. Independent evolution, convergent evolution, parallel evolution, horizontal/lateral gene transfer, fusion, etc. can all be used in all sorts of creative ways. But now the theory becomes superfluous and unfalsifiable. Anything goes.

In spite of the fact that these results are “surprising,” you explain that “Independent evolution of miRNAs in more than one lineage is not controversial.” Granted, but the reason it is not controversial, as evident in your explanation, is because the theory requires it. In other words, by interpreting biology “in the context of modern evolutionary theory,” contradictory results become “not controversial.” For example, you explain that “The divergence of (evolution of) miRNA sequences with time can actually be measured by comparing genomes of closely and more distantly related species. Most animal miRNAs also evolve rapidly, only a few have been strongly conserved over long periods of evolutionary time.” But all of this is based on the assumption of evolution. The observations provide us with no such evidence. Indeed, all of this goes against the theory. MicroRNAs, taken as a whole, represent an enormous contradiction to expectations. They do not align with the common descent model. And yet here we have papers presenting them as evidence for evolution.